From May 1804 to September 1806, two men led an expedition from St. Louis, Missouri to the Pacific Ocean and back again. The group covered over 7,000 miles, crossed the Rocky Mountains in harsh conditions, and encountered numerous Native American tribes, both friendly and hostile. They were the first people of European descent to explore this territory. Only one man died on the journey, and that was likely from acute appendicitis. All the other members of the expedition, including a young Native American mother and her newborn son, returned safely along with a treasure of newly acquired scientific, geographic and cultural knowledge of the Western United States. It was an amazing success. How did they do it?

Writing & Reflection

Both Lewis and Clark committed to writing daily journal entries. Although they were not one hundred percent faithful to that goal, they were remarkably consistent. At the end of long days, exhausted from travel, often in poor weather and inhospitable conditions, they summoned up the motivation to pick up their pen and record what they observed. It is an amazing feat of mental endurance. They also encouraged their men to keep journals and many did. It is only through these journals that many species of plants and animals native to the Western Unites States were first described. The journals provide invaluable knowledge of the Native American cultures and tribes they encountered along the way. Lewis and Clark took time to describe customs, cultural habits and the personalities of certain chiefs and guides.

While the journals were integral in capturing and preserving new discoveries from the expedition, the act of daily writing also helped Lewis and Clark become better leaders. By writing (almost) daily, they reflected on the activities and observations of the day. It afforded them time to think. They were able to make connections. And it was through this journaling that members of the expedition began to understand the greater importance of their endeavour. Many journal entries are dry and chock full of scientific observations and data, but they also provide a stirring narrative at times. Occasionally the authenticity and beauty of their writing is awe inspiring. One of the most famous journal entries is dated August 18, 1805, Lewis’ thirty-first birthday. He used the occasion to examine his life up to that point, and dedicated the remainder of his life to a greater purpose:

I have in all human probability now existed about half the period which I am to remain in the…world. I reflected that I had as yet done but little, very little, indeed, to further the happiness of the human race or to advance the information of the succeeding generation. I viewed with regret the many hours I have spent in indolence, and now sorely feel the want of that information which those hours would have given me had they been judiciously expended. But since they are past and cannot be recalled, I dash from me the gloomy thought, and resolved in future, to redouble my exertions and at least endeavour to promote those two primary objects of human existence, by giving them the aid of that portion of talents which nature and fortune have bestowed on me; or in future, to live for mankind, as I have heretofore lived for myself.

Lewis is no longer leading an expedition to further his own glory and fame, rather he has dedicated himself to advancing the cause for all mankind. Would Lewis have struck upon this insight without the daily reflection in his journal? I think it’s unlikely. And research on the power of purpose suggests that this profound insight was critical to the expedition’s success.

Co-Leadership

Although Meriwether Lewis had the higher military rank, his partner and friend, Captain William Clark, was more of a co-leader of the expedition than a subordinate. Their partnership is a precursor to Gates and Allen, Buffett and Munger, Jobs and Wozniak, Brin and Page, and other famous tech co-founders of our era. It was an unusual arrangement for that time, but it served the expedition well. On many occasions, Lewis & Clark would make a decision only after thoroughly discussing the matter amongst themselves and reaching agreement. They had the competence and confidence to make tough decisions when needed, but they also had the wisdom to know when a collaborative decision process, involving the entire expedition, was the better choice.

For example, as they were traveling up the Missouri river in the Spring of 1805, they came to a junction where two Forks of the Missouri came together to form the main river. The two conjoining rivers were close enough in size that it was difficult to determine which channel was the Missouri, and which was merely a tributary. Lewis & Clark asked for the opinion of each man. Then they set out to measure the width, depth and current of the Forks. Finally they climbed to a high bluff to get a better perspective. After all this, Lewis & Clark were convinced the South fork was the Missouri, while their men were equally confident it was the North. Here is how Lewis describes the resolution:

Today we examined our maps, and compared the information derived as well from them as [from] the Indians and fully settled in our minds the propriety of adopting the South fork for the Missouri, as that which it would be most expedient for us to take. Those ideas as they occurred to me I endeavoured to impress on the minds of the party all of whom except Capt. C [Clark] being still firm in the belief that the North Fork was the Missouri and that which we ought to take; they said very cheerfully that they were ready to follow us anywhere we thought proper to direct but that they still thought that the other was the river and that they were afraid that the South Fork would soon terminate in the mountains and leave us at a great distance from the Columbia.

It is remarkable how this passage describes not just great leadership, but also a robust decision process and a healthy team culture. This is a team where individuals are encouraged to share their opinion, where subordinates freely disagree with superiors and where the group rallies and commits behind a decision once it’s been made, with full trust in leadership. (By the way, Lewis and Clark were correct, the South Fork was the Missouri, and the North Fork was a tributary they named the Marias).

At another point in the journey, as they arrived near the mouth of the Columbia River in November 1805, the weather was stormy and wet. Hungry, tired and exposed to the elements, it was critical that the party find an appropriate camp for the winter and seek shelter. Three appropriate areas were scouted and all had certain benefits and drawbacks. A decision was needed urgently. Rather than make an executive decision, as they did at the fork of the Missouri and Marias rivers, they put the decision to vote. Every adult member of the expedition participated in the vote, including Clark’s slave, York, and Sacagawea, the only woman.

It tells us something about Lewis and Clark that they included a woman and a slave in the vote. Perhaps, by this point in the expedition, the group had endured such hardship and adversity, that all pretense of superiority due to race or gender had fallen away. This demonstrates moral courage by Lewis and Clark, yet it’s also smart leadership. They understood that this decision would have a long-lasting impact on the quality-of-life for this group over the coming winter. By voting, they encouraged everyone in the group to “buy-in” to the decision, and to live with the consequences without resorting to complaints.

Diversity

When the expedition left Fort Mandan in the Spring of 1805, it consisted of 31 men, Sacagawea, and her newborn son. Sacagawea was a Shoshone Indian and the wife of Charboneau, an interpreter who signed on to the expedition. While most people at that time would consider a young mother and her child to be a hinderance to a group of men exploring unknown and dangerous territory, Lewis & Clark never refer to Sacagawea in that way. And in fact, Sacagawea becomes critical to the success of the expedition and wins the admiration and respect of Lewis and Clark. Not only did she provide valuable knowledge about edible plants and geographic landmarks, she also paved the way for peaceful relations with Native Americans . When the group travels through the Columbia Gorge they encounter a number of tribes who are welcoming to these outsiders. Clark attributes this to the presence of Sacagawea, which “we find reconciles all the Indians as to our friendly intentions. A woman with a party of men is a token of peace.”

Servant Leadership

Lewis wasn’t afraid to assign himself a task, even if by appearance it was below his rank. If it needed to be done, he did it. This kind of dedication to the mission did not go unrecognized by the men of the expedition. When Lewis needed their support and trust, he had it.

As the expedition approached the Great Falls of the Missouri, they faced the daunting task of getting around this obstacle. The portage was long and arduous. The men made many trips, back and forth, ferrying their supplies and instruments from below the falls to above. When they finally arrived above the Great Falls and established a camp to rest, Lewis recorded in his journal:

“to myself I assign the duty of cook…I collected my wood and water, boiled a large quantity of excellent dried buffalo meat, and made each man a large suet [sweet] dumpling by way of a treat.”

When was the last time your boss cooked you dinner and dessert?

When times were difficult on the trail, Lewis was often encouraging his men to keep their spirits up, and to not lose sight of the greater purpose for which they were enduring hardship.

After a frightening encounter with the Blackfeet, Lewis and a small party that accompanied him made a hasty retreat, traveling more than 90 miles by horseback in less than 24 hours. Lewis woke the next morning exhausted and sore, yet he feared the Blackfeet were in pursuit and he understood the gravity of the situation:

The morning proved fair, I slept sound but fortunately awoke as day appeared, I awaked the men and directed the horses to be saddled, I was so sore from my ride yesterday that I could scarcely stand, and the men complained of being in a similar situation however I encouraged them by telling them that our own lives as well as those of our friends and fellow travellers depended on our exertions at this moment; they were alert soon prepared the horses and we again resumed our march;

Discipline & Culture

Early in the expedition, some of the men violated the military rules that the party operated under. Lewis & Clark were not afraid to discipline these men and assign harsh punishment including, in one case, over seventy-five lashes. The men were trying to determine what they could get away with, while Lewis and Clark were attempting to set high expectations for team behavior. When one of the party fell asleep on their watch, or exercised “mutinous behavior,” they were met with stiff punishment.

Lewis and Clark only had to resort to the lash a few times, very early in the expedition before it became clear to everyone what was expected. Two men who were intended to stay with the party for the entire journey were relieved of their duty in the Spring of 1805 and sent back to St. Louis. By removing the two men who weren’t a good fit for the culture, it strengthened the culture for everyone else. Without this kind of corrective feedback and discipline, a team will regress. On the other hand, too much discipline can backfire too. Lewis and Clark had the wisdom to balance this equation, and create a high performing culture.

More on Lewis and Clark

For a general introduction and overview of Lewis & Clark and their incredible journey, I suggest Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose. If you want more detail, go straight to the source and read their journals. I suggest The Journals of Lewis and Clark edited by Bernard DeVoto. It is an abridged version with footnotes and other references that enhance the reading experience.

I’m often asked, “what is the difference between management and leadership?” The best answer I’ve ever heard, and the one I usually give is:

Management is about doing things right. Leadership is about doing the right thing.

Like any great aphorism, it is short and memorable. It does a decent job communicating the big concept, but it can be a little dissatisfying. The natural follow up question is always, “yes, but how does it really work in practice?” Like everything that is complicated in life, it depends on the context. So it helps to tell a story to elaborate your point.

Ed Catmull is the co-founder of Pixar. In his book Creativity, Inc. he recounts a decision he made that illuminates the difference between management and leadership. It was shortly after the success of Toy Story, a movie that put Pixar on the map and was a huge critical and financial success. Pixar had partnered with Disney to distribute Toy Story, and Disney was eager to capitalize on the success. Disney suggested Pixar create a Toy Story sequel for the direct-to-video market. This was a market for B-quality movies that bypassed the theaters and went straight to the home video format. Disney had a history of financial success with this model. Rather than strive to make a movie to rival the quality and acclaim of the original, the safe bet was to quickly make a low quality film, cash in on the brand name of the original, and reap the profits.

Making Toy Story 2 for the direct-to-video market was almost guaranteed to make money for both Pixar and Disney, so it made sense from a strictly financial perspective. It was a sound management decision. There was one problem however. All of the creative talent at Pixar was already working on another movie project called A Bug’s Life. This was a dilemma. But the managers at Pixar came up with a brilliant management solution – since Toy Story 2 was a low budget, low quality project, they could reassign a few people from A Bug’s Life to quickly pull a movie together. Besides, this project wasn’t about winning another academy award, it was about getting something out the door quickly and making some money. It all made sense from a management perspective. Catmull agreed to do it.

Here is how Catmull describes what happened next:

Right away, we realized that we’d made a terrible mistake. Everything about the project ran counter to what we believed in. We didn’t know how to aim low. We had nothing against the direct-to-video model, in theory; Disney was doing it and making heaps of money. We just couldn’t figure out how to go about it without sacrificing quality. What’s more, it soon became clear that scaling back our expectations to make a direct-to-video product was having a negative input on our internal culture, in that it created an A-Team (A Bug’s Life) and a B-Team (Toy Story 2). The crew assigned to work on Toy Story 2 was not interested in producing B-level work, and more than a few came into my office to say so.

Making Toy Story 2 for the direct-to-video market was a good management decision, but it was a terrible leadership decision. Catmull exercised his leadership by quickly recognizing the mistake and reversing the decision. They stopped aiming low and reset their sites on the only target they truly believed in; making a movie that they themselves wanted to see. When Toy Story 2 was eventually released, it was a huge financial success. But perhaps even more impressive, it was widely considered by critics and moviegoers to be even better than the original.

Making Toy Story 2 for the direct-to-video market would make Pixar money in the short-term but it would destroy their culture, which was their greatest asset in the long-term. The moral of the story is that a decision can look great from a management perspective and terrible from a leadership perspective. Before you pull the trigger on the “no brainer” management decision, put on your leadership hat and consider the long-term impact to your brand, culture, strategy and mission. You may come to see the decision in a new light.

On August 17, 2000, Laird Hamilton was surfing a famous break off Tahiti called Teahupoo. The break at Teahupoo already had a fierce reputation, but on this day, Laird and his friend Darrick Doerner saw a wave approaching unlike anything they had ever seen before or since. Doerner was on a jet ski, towing Laird into the wave when the magnitude of the wave hit him:

“I towed him onto this wave and it was to the point where I almost said ‘don’t let go of the rope.’ But when I looked back, he was gone.”

What happened next has became surfing legend. The wave was so powerful, the hydraulic force began to pull Laird up onto its steep face, and was preparing to literally crush him on the reef. No one had ever rode a wave like that before and because of the shape of the wave and his position on it, he couldn’t do what he normally would do in that situation – drag his front hand in the water. Laird had the presence of mind to calmly assess the situation and come up with a solution. Here is how Sam George, the former senior editor of Surfer magazine describes what he saw:

Laird’s ride at Teahupoo was the most amazing, single most significant ride in surfing history. More than any other ride, because of what he did. It completely restructured collectively our entire perception of what was possible. Normally surfers are dragging [their font] hand, along the face. Laird had to drag his right, his back hand, on the opposite side of his board, to keep himself from getting sucked up in that hydraulic. You know, in the middle of that maelstrom, how did his mind say, “this is what I have to do?” No one had ever ridden as Laird rode on that wave before. And so it was the imagination of dealing with the unimaginable energy and coming up with a plan spontaneously. He couldn’t practice.

With that ride, Laird redefined what was possible in surfing.

Later, Laird’s father, Billy Hamilton, an accomplished big wave surfer himself, asked Laird the question that was on the mind of everyone else:

Why do you risk your life riding waves like this? and he looked at me – this is a week after he did this and he was kind of drained from the experience. I think he was humbled by the experience. And he goes, “Dad, I’ve trained my whole life for this. I don’t want to miss an opportunity like that.”

The wave represented the ultimate challenge for Laird, a force of nature worthy to test his talents. It was an opportunity to push himself, and the sport of surfing, beyond what was then considered possible, and he rose to the occasion.

As outsiders, or amateurs, when we see Laird Hamilton riding the Millennial Wave, it seems magical, almost beyond human, but to Laird, a professional who has spent years practicing and preparing for this moment, it is the natural extension of his life’s work.

In the biographies of successful people you’ll see a similar pattern. There is a long period of training and preparation until, at some point, forces align to present an opportunity. Consider Bill Gates and Paul Allen, and the hours of time they logged programming their high school computer in the early 1970s. By the time the personal computer wave gathered strength in the early 1980s, Gates and Allen were well positioned to ride that wave with Microsoft, the company they founded.

Luck plays a role too, no doubt. But I believe fortune merely dictates the size and magnitude of the wave, and maybe the frequency with which the really big opportunities arrive, but everyone gets at least one wave at some point in their life.

Shakespeare recognized this too.

“There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.” – Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3

There is a lesson here for all of us. We don’t have to be professional big wave surfers to recognize that there are times in our career when we see a big wave forming. We have to ask ourselves, “are we going to paddle away from it, or paddle into it?” It doesn’t come without risk. But there is also risk in avoiding it.

How do some athletes and artists stay dedicated to their craft over many years, even decades? And throughout that time, how do they continue to improve, and turn in game-changing performances and create break-through works of art? In their book, Peak Performance, Brad Stulberg and Steve Magness explore how some individuals are able to find another gear, and develop the focus and dedication to achieve mastery. What is their secret?

Well, it’s not really a secret because almost everyone who reaches that kind of success is willing to share with others how they did it. And it’s not even that complicated. However, it is very, very difficult to execute. What I love about the book is how the authors break down the recipe into chunks that are doable, and they layout a roadmap for how to get there.

1. Stress is good. Stress + Rest = Growth. To get better, we have to create experiences that challenge us and stretch our abilities. Afterward, it’s equally important to build in time for sleep and restoration. This is the growth equation and a good analogy for how this works is a muscle. To get stronger we must stress our muscles by lifting weights at the gym. But the time at the gym, when we are stressing our muscles, is not when our muscles grow. Afterward, when we sleep, the tissue that was torn during the workout grows back even stronger. So stress is good, but too much stress is detrimental. So what is the right level? Look for what the authors call Just Manageable Challenges.

2. Just Manageable Challenges. Great athletes, writers, and musicians are masters at using practice time to hone specific skills by creating challenges that are just beyond the outer limits of their ability. This was first defined by Anders Ericsson as deliberate practice, and entered the public lexicon through Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers. I like the Just Management Challenge label over the Deliberate Practice label because it more accurately describes what high performers do to continually improve. This is one of those habits that’s easy to say and hard to do. The hard work required to face a Just Manageable Challenge day after day is what separates the amateurs from the professionals. Most of us reach a certain level, feeling good about the progress we’ve made, and we coast. One way to overcome this inertia is to create routines in your life.

3. Develop an Optimal Daily Routine and Stick to It. Some of us are Night Owls while some of us are Morning Larks. Find out when your mental and emotional energy is surging, and schedule your deep focused work for this time. Once you develop a routine, don’t deviate from it. The idea is to manage your energy in concert with managing your time, so you’re at your best when you need to do the work that requires the greatest level of concentration and focus. And don’t forget to build sleep into your schedule. World class athletes prioritize sleep in the same way they prioritize practice and healthy meals. Stulberg & Magness write, “The best performers are not consistently great, but they are great at being consistent. They show up every day and do the work.” But even the most dedicated professionals go through periods when they lose their motivation and performance suffers. To avoid this focus on why you’re doing the work in the first place.

4. Transcend Yourself. Find Your Why. If you want to truly achieve great things you must push yourself beyond the limits, but who defines the limits? It turns out, our brains define the limits. The limits we perceive are self-imposed, designed to prevent us from burning out or suffering complete exhaustion. But if the ultimate purpose for our actions is not centered on ourselves, rather it is centered on others, we can break through these limits. The authors tell the story of Meb Keflezighi, the winner of the Boston Marathon in 2014. He was the first American to win the race since 1983, and his victory came one year after terrorists detonated a bomb during the marathon, killing and injuring spectators. The authors write:

Keflezighi credits his incredible performance to the inspiration he felt while running for those who had died in the terrorist attack the year before. He even wrote their names on his race bib…he ran with greater purpose and motivation. “Toward the end I was remembering the victims who passed away,” he said. “They helped carry me through.”

Find a purpose greater than yourself and dedicate yourself to achieving that purpose. The authors offer a step-by-step process to help readers create their own purpose. It sounds corny, I know, but in this case, it’s powerful. I went through the process myself and developed a personal purpose statement. I’m sure it will evolve over time, but for now I find it really does give me greater purpose and urgency to do the work that is important for me. I highly recommend Peak Performance for anyone interested in creating purposeful, long-lasting work that transcends your own narrow interests, and serves to make the world a better place.

If you prefer podcasts, co-author Brad Stulberg talks about the ideas in Peak Performance on Patrick O’Shaughnessy’s podcast Invest Like the Best.

For a team to be successful, team members must put the interests of the team above their own. It’s necessary for team members, at times, to sacrifice their ego, play a supporting role, and in some deep sense, care more for the success of the team than for individual achievement and glory. These are timeless truths with roots extending far back to the very dawn of human culture. Cooperation has been reinforced, generation after generation, through the evolution of human culture. Agriculture, barter, trade, building and waging war – they all require some level of teamwork. Those tribes that mastered teamwork accumulated wealth, solved problems, conquered their neighbors and more successfully prepared their offspring for survival.

However, our long history of cooperation as a species does not mean we have mastered teamwork. Getting a team to perform at its highest level is not easy. As a culture, we’ve long recognized the challenges of teamwork. The Iliad, among the oldest existing works of Western literature, written somewhere around the 8th century BC, is essentially about a breakdown in teamwork. In the famous story, Agamemnon, the leader of the Greeks, offends his best warrior, Achilles. When Agamemnon is forced by the gods to give up his slave-girl, in a selfish move he takes Achilles’ slave-girl to replace his own. Agamemnon and Achilles take turns insulting one another and impugning each other’s motives. Eventually, Achilles is sent into a rage and just like that, trust erodes, the unity of the Greek army breaks down, and tragedy ensues.

In the Iliad, Agamemnon and Achilles lose sight of the purpose that originally drew them together and motivated them to travel to Troy in the first place; namely to defeat the Trojans and return home glorious. Instead, Achilles removes himself from the fighting, essentially sitting on the sidelines as his team remains on the field in a bitter fight. Achilles goes so far as to root for the other team, the Trojans, hoping that his team, the Greek army, is so weakened and desperate that they will finally recognize and appreciate his role on the team.

Why is the Iliad still so widely read today, and continues to be taught in our Universities? The central theme of the Iliad reflects the same conflicts and struggles we encounter every day in our modern world. How often are we on teams where egos are bruised because some careless words are misinterpreted? Or a selfish team member is sabotaging the team to pursue their own narrow interests? Right at the very beginning of Western Civilization there is a recognition of both the importance of teamwork, and an acknowledgement of the precarious nature of teams. A number of things must go right for a team to be successful, but there’s a thousand ways a team can unravel.

We’ve all been on a team that clicks. Everything seems to be flowing smoothly. Team members understand their role and they deliver above and beyond what is expected of them. Communication is clear and effective. Team members feel safe to voice their opinion. There is a clear sense of why the team exists and what you are aiming for. The team is able to achieve more than you ever thought possible.

And then we’ve been on other teams, where nothing seems to go right. Communication breaks down. There are conflicting goals about the future. Roles and responsibilities are poorly defined. Promises are broken and trust erodes. The values of some on the team conflict with the values of others. Team members do the very minimum of what is required, and sometimes not even that. Eventually people stop giving their best effort and a vicious cycle spirals downward toward failure.

As the world becomes more complicated and interconnected, the importance of teamwork grows. As our roles in society become ever more specialized, our ability to cooperate and work effectively with others is a skill that becomes increasingly critical to society.

There is no magic formula where you can plug in the variables for your team and spit out a solution. However, there are traits that successful teams share. These traits cross functions, disciplines, industries, cultures, even generations. These traits include:

Clarifying a purpose for why the team exists.

Defining a vision for what the team is ultimately trying to achieve.

Identifying the values and behaviors that the team believes in deeply, and are important and critical for success.

Establishing a culture that reinforces and protects the values and behaviors.

Developing a strategy or plan to get the team for where it is today to where it wants to be.

Setting goals, both individually and as a team, that serve to move the team forward.

Creating feedback loops to ensure the team is facing reality and to measure progress toward goals.

Selecting the right players, with a balance of talent, interpersonal skills and character.

And finally, having the leadership to oversee all these traits and to inspire, motivate and lead the team into the future.

Sean P. Murray is an author, speaker and consultant in the areas of leadership development and talent management. Learn more at RealTime Performance.

If your boss came up to you today and asked you to form a team for a high-profile strategic project, what would be your first task? If you’re like most people, your thoughts would immediately turn toward whom to select to join your team. After all, we’ve been conditioned to believe that the most important factor for any team is the quality of the players. If you want a super team, fill it with superstars. Just look at the Golden State Warriors.

Now suppose your boss gave you a further stipulation. You’re not allowed to select the team members – they will be selected randomly from across the organization. Did the probability of success for this new team just go down? Conventional wisdom says yes. Your team of average players is not likely to outperform your team of superstars.

Not so fast, says Laszlo Bock, former Head of People Operations at Google. In 2015, Bock and his team of Google researchers announced the results of an exhaustive study of team dynamics at Google. Over the previous two years, they studied a wide variety of teams at Google to determine the common characteristics and traits of Google’s most highly successful teams:

“The biggest thing you should take away from this work is that how teams work matters, in a lot of ways, more than who is on them. There’s a myth we all carry inside our head. We think we need superstars, but that’s not what our research found. You can take a team of average performers, and if you teach them to interact the right way, they’ll do things no superstar could ever accomplish.”

What Bock and his team discovered was that team norms and ground rules have a huge impact on the performance of a team. When any group forms, the individual team members begin adopting, often informally, a set of team norms or rules of behavior. For example, in one group it might be socially acceptable to interrupt another team member. While another group might be the opposite, where everyone waits for others to stop talking before they weigh-in.

It turns out, establishing the right norms is the real key to success. The critical factor is creating what Bock and other researchers call psychological safety – an environment or culture where team members feel safe to share ideas and perspectives, where people feel listened to and valued, and where individuals engage in constructive dialogue and debate.

The Google research uncovered five key norms that correlate with high performing teams. Charles Duhigg writes about these norms in his book Smarter, Faster, Better:

Psychological Safety: Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed?

Dependability: Can we count on each other to do high quality work on time?

Structure & clarity: Are goals, roles, and execution plans on our team clear?

Meaning of work: Are we working on something that is personally important for each of us?

Impact of work: Do we fundamentally believe that the work we’re doing matters?

Psychological Safety was by far the most important group norm. So how can we establish psychological safety on our teams? Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School has conducted research into what makes teams successful:

“The best way to establish psychological safety is demonstration by a team leader. It seems like fairly minor stuff, but when the leader goes out of their way to make someone feel listened to, or starts a meeting by saying ‘I might miss something, so I need all of you to watch for my mistakes,’ or says ‘Jim, you haven’t spoken in a while, what do you think?,’ that makes a huge difference.”

As a team leader, there are ground rules you can adopt to increase your chances for team success:

Everyone contributes during a meeting.

Demonstrate listening by summarizing what you hear others say.

It’s okay to make a mistake, just don’t make the same mistake twice.

Everyone’s opinion and perspective is valued and heard.

No talking behind people’s back or shooting down ideas in the hallway after the meeting.

If you have something to share, speak up at the meeting.

Admit when you don’t know.

Charles Duhigg summarizes it this way, “Teams succeed when everyone feels like they can speak up and when members show they are sensitive to how one another feels.”

So, the next time you’re tasked with forming a team, worry less about who’s on the team, and focus more on the norms and behaviors that will establish an environment where your team can thrive.

I was 23 years old, in my first professional job and I was failing big-time. My boss had recently handed me a list of five-hundred names and phone numbers and instructed me to cold call them. I picked up the phone and started dialing. I felt a palpable sense of fear and anxiety as I reached for the phone to make each call. I experienced a wave of rejection the likes of which I had never before seen. I was demoralized.

My boss could see I was floundering and ready to quit. After a few days, he stopped by my desk. I was sure I was fired.

His first question caught me off-guard, “what do you think about sales?” You see, at that time I had a very low opinion of sales people. In my naive view of the world, sales was a dirty word. Sales was some sort of trick a used car salesman played on gullible car buyers to induce them to overpay for a lemon. My degree was in Mathematics and what I really wanted to do was work on the development side of the business, writing code and creating content. But the only opening was in sales, so I took the job thinking it couldn’t be that hard, and eventually I could work my way into development. I was beginning to regret that decision.

My boss was a former sales and marketing executive at Intel. He went on to explain how critical the sales function was to Intel’s success. He described the level of esteem and respect afforded the sales department because of the value it added to the organization. Now he had my attention.

Furthermore, he explained how mastering the art of sales would help me no matter where I go in my career. “Sales is not about pushing a product,” he said. “Sales is about listening, asking good questions and solving a problem for your customer. It’s about guiding, influencing and advising.”

Next, my boss switched gears and addressed my woeful sales skills. “I can see you’re struggling, and your results are below expectations, but I can also see you’ve got raw talent. With a little coaching and feedback, I think you’re going to be excellent at sales.”

Could he be serious? Did he not see how terrible I am at sales? I was skeptical at first, but I decided I had little to lose if I followed his lead.

To improve my skills, we role-played sales calls. He played the role of the customer and I practiced winning the sale. He gave me suggestions and advice for how to overcome objections, how to make a connection, how to ask good questions, how to present a solution and how to ask for the sale.

I didn’t turn it around overnight, but that conversation started me on a journey of learning and improving that led me to eventually become the top sales person at the company. And not a day goes by in my career that I don’t rely on my sales skills in some way.

In a short period of time my boss effectively repaired my self-esteem (“what you’re doing in sales is important”), provided motivation (“If you can get better at sales, it’s going to help you in your career) and instilled confidence (“I believe you can be successful”).

When I coach people today on a specific skill, I use the same steps:

Help people see how the skill is important for their career goals.

Provide feedback in light of high expectations.

Take the time to practice or critique the skill in a safe environment.

Great leaders are great teachers. They carve out time to have meaningful conversations with their people. They don’t avoid uncomfortable conversations. They have the confidence and maturity to provide feedback and help people grow. In today’s busy work environment, with texts, alerts, instant messages, email, meetings and all the demands on our time, I worry that these coaching conversations aren’t happening as often as they should.

If someone on your team is struggling, don’t give up on them. Try these steps. Invest in their future. You just might change someone’s life.

For the past few years Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has shared his approach to decision making in his annual letter to shareholders. Given Amazon’s ability to innovate, and its meteoric rise to retail dominance, there is much we can learn from Bezos and his tips for better decision making.

Type 1 vs. Type 2 Decisions

Bezos categorizes all decisions into two types. Type 1 decisions are big, strategic and consequential. These decisions must be made very carefully and methodically. They are irreversible or nearly irreversible. He likens them to one-way doors. When you open the door, if you don’t like what you see you can’t easily turn around to get back to where you were before.

However, most of the decisions we face are not Type 1 decisions, rather they are reversible or changeable. Bezos calls these Type 2 decisions and likens them to a two-way door. If you don’t like what you see when you walk through the door, simply turn-around and walk back through the door. Type 2 decisions can be made quickly by people with good judgment or small groups with relevant experience.

As organizations get larger, there seems to be a tendency to use the heavy-weight Type 1 decision-making process on most decisions, including many Type 2 decisions. The end result of this is slowness, unthoughtful risk aversion, failure to experiment sufficiently, and consequently diminished invention. We’ll have to figure out how to fight that tendency.

In the early years, when an organization is still in start-up mode, decisions are made quickly and efficiently by knowledgeable individuals and small groups – especially the less consequential Type 2 decisions. Risk is assumed and accepted as a necessity for survival. However, as organizations grow larger, more and more decisions come under scrutiny, and multiple layers of managements are required to weigh-in on decisions of all types. Risk becomes something to avoid at all costs rather than something to embrace under the right conditions.

As Amazon gets bigger, the risk of losing its innovative edge also increases. Amazon now has over 340,000 employees. Even small decisions require multiple levels of approval. At some point, bureaucracy and inertia set in. Bezos is fighting hard against these organizational trends. It will be fascinating to see how long he can keep these forces at bay.

The 70% Rule

In a world where technology is disrupting markets at an increasing pace, organizations can’t afford to wait until they have all the information they need to make the best decision. Bezos recognizes the full cost of decision delay and has instituted something he calls high velocity decision making. Bezos suggests that most large successful organizations are good at making high-quality decisions, it’s just that they make them slowly. The challenge for Amazon is to make high-quality, high-velocity decisions.

One way to do that is to recognize when you have enough information to make the decision and then execute. Knowing where to draw that line is challenging, so Bezos provides a rule of thumb:

Most decisions should probably be made with somewhere around 70% of the information you wish you had. If you wait for 90%, in most cases, you’re probably being slow. Plus, either way, you need to be good at quickly recognizing and correcting bad decisions. If you’re good at course correcting, being wrong may be less costly than you think, whereas being slow is going to be expensive for sure.

Disagree and Commit

Decision making improves when multiple perspectives are considered in the process. However, when smart independent thinkers come together there will be disagreements of opinion and strong views about the future. These are healthy ingredients when it comes to decision making, but all these strong-minded people and opinions can delay the decision. Speed matters in business, so Bezos has this advice:

Use the phrase “disagree and commit.” This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?” By the time you’re at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you’ll probably get a quick yes.

Bezos goes on to provide examples of when he has used “disagree and commit” himself. When Amazon employees pitch ideas to Bezos they don’t have to convince him their idea is right, they just need to get his commitment, which he readily admits is a lower bar:

Consider how much slower this decision cycle would have been if the team had actually had to convince me rather than simply get my commitment.

As you reflect on the decision-making culture at your organization, is the main goal to make high quality decisions, or are you taking into consideration decision velocity as well?

Consider the recent case of J. Crew. The fashion retailer has fallen on hard times with ten consecutive quarters of declining same-store sales. When asked about this, Mickey Drexler, the CEO and Chairman, said:

“I’ve never seen the speed of change as it is today. If I could go back 10 years, I might have done some things earlier.”

Edward O. Thorp is not well-known outside of finance, but within the investment community he is revered like a rock star. Over two decades, Thorp recorded average annual returns of 19.1%, an incredible achievement. In his recent memoir, A Man for All Markets, Thorp tells his amazing life story, from a child of the depression through an early career as an academic and finally as a successful investor.

Independent Thinking

Early on Thorp developed a fiercely independent mind that guided his thinking throughout his career. Thorp relates this story from his early childhood:

“A trait that showed up at about this time was my tendency not to accept anything I was told until I had checked it for myself. This had consequences. When I was three, my mother told me not to touch the hot stove because it would burn me. I brought my finger close enough to feel the warmth, then pressed the stove with my hand. Burned. Never again.”

This trait of independent thinking showed up again in high school when he was introduced to science. For Thorp science was very hands on, and he took it as a personal challenge to verify for himself as much as he could:

“Pranks and experiments were part of learning science my way. As I came to understand the theory, I tested it by doing experiments, many of which were fun things I invented. I was learning to work things out for myself, not limited by prompting from teachers, parents, or the school curriculum. I relished the power of pure thought combined with the logic and predictability of science. I loved visualizing an idea and then making it happen.”

Taking on Vegas

This kind of mindset empowered Thorp to take on challenges most people would dismiss as impossible or not worth their time. While studying mathematics in graduate school, Thorp became curious about gambling and the prospect of beating the casinos at their own game. With his knowledge of physics, he suspected he could devise a system that would accurately predict where a ball would land on a roulette wheel. As he asked around, the consensus view was that it is impossible to beat the house. One memorable evening Thorp was at a dinner party with Richard Feynman, the famous physicist, who was then a thirty-eight year old professor at CalTech:

If anyone knew if physical prediction at roulette was possible it should be Richard Feynman. I asked him, “Is there any way to beat the game of roulette?” When he said there wasn’t, I was relieved and encouraged. This suggested that no one had yet worked out what I believed was possible. With this incentive, I began a series of experiments.

Thorp, along with fellow MIT professor Claude Shannon, went on to invent the world’s first wearable computer. He worked out an ingenious system and timing device that included a switch activated by tapping his toe, and a tiny speaker embedded near his ear. The speaker would inform him, though different tones, where on the roulette board the odds were in his favor.

Thorp also turned his attention to blackjack. Once again dismissing the conventional wisdom, he set out to create a system of counting cards, that would inform him when odds tipped in his favor and he could place larger bets. His system was successful, and he turned it into a book, Beat the Dealer, that sold over a million copies.

The Greatest Casino on Earth

With royalty money from the book, and additional winnings from his time playing blackjack in the casinos, Thorp, for the first time in his life, had excess capital to invest. He decided to take his skills to the greatest casino on earth – Wall Street. After a few early mistakes (remember the burned hand from the stove?), he set out to learn for himself everything he could about investing. It was this ability to build up knowledge first-hand, and to never accept theory until he verified it himself, that really set Thorp apart.

Around this time, Thorp became very interested in the market for options. He believed this market to be inefficient – that is he predicted that the price of some options were widely different from their intrinsic value. If he was going to make money trading options, he needed a model that would accurately value an option. Since no such model existed, he decided to develop one himself. What Thorp discovered was a formula to accurately value options. He used the formula to generate extraordinary returns for himself and his partners. A few years later, two academics, Fischer Black and Myron Scholes, would independently develop the same formula, and would be awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for the discovery.

Success is not about Money

In the late 1980s, after two decades of successful investing, Thorp had more than enough money and he decided to retire from managing money for other people. Instead, he used his time to study, travel, and spend time with family and friends. To explain this decision, Thorp relates the following story:

Joseph Heller and Kurt Vonnegut were at a party given by a billionaire when Vonnegut asked Heller how it felt to know that their host might have made more money in one day than Heller’s Catch-22 since it was written. Heller said he had something the rich man can never have. When puzzled, Vonnegut asked what that could be, Heller answered, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”

It took real wisdom to make this decision. As Thorp explains, “Success on Wall Street was getting the most money. Success for us [Thorp and his wife Vivian] was having the best life.”

I found Thorp’s book to be both enlightening and entertaining.

Sean P. Murray is an author, speaker and consultant in the areas of leadership development and talent management.

In a recent interview, Ed Catmull, the cofounder of Pixar, shares his views on risk, failure and culture. The entire interview is worthwhile, but I found Ed’s perspective on these three issues to be especially insightful and applicable to all industries.

Taking Risks

The nature of innovation requires risk taking. This creates a fundamental tension for leaders who are simultaneously tasked with providing clear, stable leadership and managing a process that creates something new and of value. The process of creation is inherently messy, so we have to strike a balance. Here is how Ed describes it:

We know, intellectually, that if we want to do something new, there will be some unpredictable problems. But if it gets too messy, it actually does fall apart. And adhering to the pure, original plan falls apart, too, because it doesn’t represent reality. So you are always in this balance between clear leadership and chaos; in fact that’s where you’re supposed to be. Rather than thinking, “OK, my job is to prevent or avoid all the messes,” I just try to say, “well, let’s make sure it doesn’t get too messy.”

So how does Ed deal with this tension? Ed breaks risk down into three stages:

The first stage is to consciously decide what risks you want to take. The second is to work out the consequences of those choices; this can be fairly time consuming. The third stage is “lock and load,” when you do not intentionally add new risk. The trick is to make sure you do stage one—doing something that has risk as part of it.

Too many managers overlook that first step. And in their defence, often the cultural norms and incentives are lined up to reinforce leadership behaviors that provide clarity and stability, while the leadership behaviors that embrace risk are not supported. You have to decide what you’re willing to take a risk on. If you’re struggling with this step, revisit the core purpose or mission of your organization. Why does your organization exist at all? How are you changing the world? The risks you take should be about furthering your organizational mission.

Failure

How we view the experience of failure when we look into the past is completely opposite to how we view the experience of failure when we project into the future:

One of the things about failure is that it’s asymmetrical with respect to time. When you look back and see failure, you say, “it made me what I am!” But looking forward, you think, “I don’t know what is going to happen and I don’t want to fail.”

Ed’s solution to this dilemma is to run lots of experiments. This, by the way, is the same approach that Jeff Bezos champions at Amazon. One of my favorite Bezos quotes is; “if you double the number of experiments you do per year you’re going to double your inventiveness.” By running experiments you build into the culture this idea of continuously trying new ideas. Risk is embedded in the process and you create an environment where it is safe to fail. The key is learning from each experiment and accepting that many of them will fail.

Culture

Ed emphasizes the importance of what he calls cultural succession. Each generation of leadership is charged with passing down the timeless values that make your organization unique and ultimately drive your success:

Everybody talks about succession planning because of its importance, but to me the issue that’s missed is cultural succession. You have to make sure the next level down understands what the actual values are. For example, Walt Disney was driven by technological change and he brought that energy into the company. This was sound and color in the early days of the film industry. Then, in the theme parks, he used the highest technology available to create experiences and animatronics.

But after he died, the people left didn’t fully understand how he thought. So it fell away from the company, and it didn’t come back until Walt’s nephew, Roy Disney Jr., used his authority to reintroduce the concept. He insisted on getting into a contract with Pixar, over the objection that our software wouldn’t save any money. He said, “no, I want it because it will infuse energy into animation.” He was very explicit about it—he understood better what Walt was doing.

The question is, “if Walt understood it, why didn’t the other people understand it?” They just assumed that he was a genius, without thinking about what he was actually doing. Thus, the value wasn’t passed on. Today, much of our senior leadership’s time is spent making sure our values are deeply embedded at every level of our organization. It is very challenging—but necessary for us to continue making great movies.

Given the demographics of today’s workforce, this issue of passing down your values is becoming even more critical. As the Baby Boomers retire and hand the keys to the next generation, too often the values are forgotten or neglected. For the past year I have been deeply involved in a project at Honda focused on this very challenge. Embedding the values in each successive generation requires lots of storytelling, mentoring and coaching. It’s not enough to simply live the values day-to-day, you have to also communicate why the values are important, and how they guide decision making.